BC - I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn’t keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.
Here is the text of the Senate resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-resolution/301/text
Here is the text of the House resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/719/text
The former is a fair sight more neutrally worded and measured in tone than the latter. The author of the House resolution had to know that their characterization was going to be more nettlesome and create partisan friction where none need exist.
bc, maybe I'm misreading, but it looks like you brought up Hitler by talking about Godwin's law. I found the 'felon love' facebook post, but why is that something that puts what he wrote off-limits rather than a joke that missed the target? I won't go back to the archive, but unless you have never complained that liberals can't be such snowflakes, well, physician, heal thyself.
I'm not sure how much we weigh the various eulogies and such. Is Trump's proclamation and flying flags at half mast, along with the resolution in the house when none of these steps were done for Hortman indicative of something? Why did/does the right's reaction to what seems to be much more like politically motivated violence not rise to being a "turning point"? Or is the phrase under trademark now?
HSH: I have a problem with jumping right to Hitler as a primary means of criticism, especially after an actual assassination. It is a form of "he deserved it."
The guy you link to celebrates the murder of Brian Thompson and notes he (the FB poster) "felon love" with Luigi Mangione. He thinks Charlie Kirk's LIFE was a tragedy, not his death. All based on ideas. His comments about Kirk's debate style are simply not representative of what I have seen. I saw some Charlie Kirk stuff from time-to-time before his assassination. There was a lot I didn't agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described. I like long-form debate mostly, like the Monk Debates. Watch Kirk's debates at the Oxford Union and Cambridge, or his conversation with Bill Maher. He isn't riding herd on some poor college student there. He is exchanging ideas. I note that the Cambridge students he debated with mourned his death and admired his commitment to the exchange of ideas. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wdp2ypq5vo
I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn't keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.
Kirk's death feels significant. I think that is in large part to the left's (painting broadly here) reaction.
It's no surprise that this plugs into a belief of might is right. It also suggests that you can't deal with folks like that by reasoning, you just have to show them a bigger stick.
One thing that I’m struck by about Cruz’ defense of free speech (and Rand Paul’s I think) is not that we do this because strength comes from a diversity of opinions, but because the liberals might do it to us.
Yes, I noticed that with a few of the Rs taking this tack. It does seem contemptible, but the only thing that gives me pause is that even if a particular person saying it actually did feel it was a matter of principle, they might nevertheless make this argument to bring as many Rs, MAGAs etc along with them as possible under prevailing conditions. However, I can't offhand think of anybody this might apply to (although of course I am not all that familiar with all of their records), and given the current state of the GOP, this would probably be a tiny minority even if it existed.
Looking at the Disqus agreement, you retain the ownership of your comments, you give Disqus a license to handle them in order to provide their service. It doesn't seem like a stretch that they could use them for AI under the guise of giving you better service. I realize that this is probably a losing battle (and it's not like they can't scrape these comments) but at least they would have to go thru a few more steps. The whole model is set up to track for ads and allow commenters to keep track of their comments on multiple sites, which just lends itself to big data shenanigans.
I'm glad Disqus isn't being considered. The Lawyers, Guns & Money blog switched to Disqus because handling their large comment volume was beyond the capability of the WordPress built-in system or available plug-ins. A very regular comment is someone asking, "Is it just me, or is Disqus more screwed up than normal today?" From time to time I add a comment there to the effect of, "If I weren't so lazy, I'd round up some of the commenters who are also retired geeks and we'd write a system to be what Disqus wanted."
This Politico piece talks about that. It’s clear the 54-year-old Texan is wagering that at some future date, when he’s still young enough to run for president again, his party will drift back to its free market and free speech moorings. I know Cruz well enough to hear him saying it on the stump at some future Pizza Ranch stop: Look, folks, I think Trump did a lot of good and his critics never gave him a fair shot, but I stood up for our conservative values when it wasn’t totally popular in our party. (And, yes, it’s also no coincidence that Cruz has used his two major critiques to target other actors in the administration rather than Trump himself.)
One thing that I'm struck by about Cruz' defense of free speech (and Rand Paul's I think) is not that we do this because strength comes from a diversity of opinions, but because the liberals might do it to us. This suggests that if there wasn't that argument, he's be all in.
Several decades ago, I read To the Stars: The Autobiography of George Takei, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu. It was interesting, though I don't remember much of it now.
The link profiles of thirty people who were prominent or became prominent after their internment.
The link reiterates some of the ideas about home touched on here.
"The sense of home varies significantly between individuals and cultures, shaped by personal experiences, values, and societal norms." Home: Personal and Cultural Perspectives
Am I really going to be the first to mention that love makes a house a home? I've read that in more than one kitchen. Come to think of it, I've also read that home is where the heart is on a few house walls. I guess that logically means that love puts the heart in a house, though I've never seen it put that way in a cutely decorated kitchen.
What wj said. Although, in the case of e.g. Ted Cruz, his past record entitles us to suspect that there may be more to his apparently principled stand than meets the eye. Cynicism which prompts a jump a particular way after reading the (national) room is different from sticking bravely to your principles. But sure, better to do it than not, like so many of the others.
He make an excellent point that, among those with whom we massively disagree, there are (pardon me) nuances. Some had the virtue of opposing his being cancelled and the courage to stand up and say so. Others either supported it, or at least lacked the courage to say so.
Oppose those you disagree with, sure. But acknowledge it when they get something right.
I used to make pilgrimages to Glacier National Park but no more: climate change and crowds. I used to go to Yukon Territory but no more: climate change. I got married in front of the Tree of Life on the coast out at Kalaloch and my husband and I have gone there annually for over 20 years. This winter will be our last trip. The Tree of Life has fallen over--victim of climate change. Most of the bluff cabins have been torn down because of bluff failure, also climate change. I am planning a pilgrimage to Escalante in Utah. I've been going there for the hiking since the 1970s but this will be my last trip. Too crowded. Zion and Bryce get over a million visitors each summer and the spill over is reaching the Boulder area. When I first went there, the trails were barely developed, the roads were gravel and there was barely anything in the way of tourism. Now the area is being promoted by the state and the wonder and adventure is gone.
Before ruminating, I will mention how odd I find it that Klein is lamenting the use of social pressure and shame in the aftermath of one person shooting another in the neck with a bolt-action rifle - that is, murdering another over political differences.
But I am stuck on one bit in particular, which Klein offered during his Shapiro interview in response to an outpouring of criticism for the whitewashing portrayal of Kirk in his op-ed. He contends that living with one another on the basis of “social shame and cultural pressure” cannot work and would not be worthwhile if it did: a nation where such things flourished would not be “a free country.”
What could Klein possibly mean by this? We are indeed going to have to live with each other, barring apocalyptic violence—but we already have been for quite some time, and doing so has not required revisionist history of the sort we are now witnessing about one Charles James Kirk in particular. The political ascendancy of right-wing fractions of the U.S. adult population is new. But their existence, of course, is not: they were not born in the summer of 2020, recent efforts to blame their intransigence and bigotry on whatever missteps may or may not have occurred during the George Floyd protests notwithstanding.
Interesting stuff, thanks everyone. I've never had a 'home', but have always felt that there should be some place that should function as that. This may be because we are soaked in the idea (writing the post, I started a list of works that had that idea in them, but after jotting down 10 or 15, I thought it might be a bit much).
In college, we had a lot of fun with 'my people' and 'your people'. Sarcastic and full of ourselves, you can imagine when we might use it.
I was trying to find a line in a Pico Ayer essay about asking someone, a person who was basically a cosmopolitan, where he was from and him being totally baffled by the question. Couldn't find it, but did find this Tedtalk that might be of interest.
CaseyL: it's hard to convey intonation in text! They said "home is wherever WE are", i.e. surely as long as your parents are here, it's home. And that's not right, as my sibs and I know all too well. My upbringing had many privileges, and wonderful, character-forming experiences, but it did not give a certain kind of security and stability which I see in friends who never changed country, and often lived in the same house their entire childhood. My parents, apart from (I suppose) being people of their generation, were both born and brought up in the same country until well into adulthood, so I guess they had no concept of the kind of deracination which can result from the loss of e.g. a culture, pets, etc etc.
GftNC - Home is not "wherever we are," though being able to feel at home wherever you are is a gift.
I have lived in Seattle since the mid-1970s (aside from a few years interregnum when I had to go back to Florida), and have been in my current house for nearly 30 years. I agree with you whole-heartedly that the thought of moving is fairly horrifying.
OTOH, if I ever do have to relocate, I hope I have the grit and spirit to make an adventure out of it.
I felt oddly at home while visiting London many years ago.
While London can feel like you are permanently swimming upriver, oddly enough it also feels like home to so many different people because of its diversity. That word has been thrown around unthinkingly a lot in recent years (along with "vibrant", real estate agent speak for "deprived", argh) but I don't think there are that many cities that are actually as truly diverse as London. Among other factors 40%+ of the people are foreign born so there is no one group dominating the city in any significant way and despite the crazy prices there are still council flats in Hampstead. And Londoners are by and large a nice bunch. I have different "homes" in my head as well, but feel this is it for now.
I was dragged around a lot as a child (4 countries), homes changed and parents said "but darling, surely home is wherever we are?" (for clever and worldly people they were remarkably clueless about children's psychology), so I have now lived in the same apartment in London for 47 years - longer than almost anybody I know has lived anywhere. I lived in LA for a year in the 90s, but kept my apartment and it was always "home". Even when I married, I split my time fairly equally between the North Country and my London pad, and since my husband died eight years ago I have been permanently in London. The idea of moving is fairly horrifying to me. I wish I were more flexible, but I have just turned 70, so maybe that's that.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Precursors”
Imagine if Klobuchar, in her resolution, had said that Hortman was a devoted protector of women's reproductive freedom...
"
BC - I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn’t keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.
Here is the text of the Senate resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-resolution/301/text
Here is the text of the House resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/719/text
The former is a fair sight more neutrally worded and measured in tone than the latter. The author of the House resolution had to know that their characterization was going to be more nettlesome and create partisan friction where none need exist.
"
bc, maybe I'm misreading, but it looks like you brought up Hitler by talking about Godwin's law. I found the 'felon love' facebook post, but why is that something that puts what he wrote off-limits rather than a joke that missed the target? I won't go back to the archive, but unless you have never complained that liberals can't be such snowflakes, well, physician, heal thyself.
I'm not sure how much we weigh the various eulogies and such. Is Trump's proclamation and flying flags at half mast, along with the resolution in the house when none of these steps were done for Hortman indicative of something? Why did/does the right's reaction to what seems to be much more like politically motivated violence not rise to being a "turning point"? Or is the phrase under trademark now?
"
HSH: I have a problem with jumping right to Hitler as a primary means of criticism, especially after an actual assassination. It is a form of "he deserved it."
The guy you link to celebrates the murder of Brian Thompson and notes he (the FB poster) "felon love" with Luigi Mangione. He thinks Charlie Kirk's LIFE was a tragedy, not his death. All based on ideas. His comments about Kirk's debate style are simply not representative of what I have seen. I saw some Charlie Kirk stuff from time-to-time before his assassination. There was a lot I didn't agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described. I like long-form debate mostly, like the Monk Debates. Watch Kirk's debates at the Oxford Union and Cambridge, or his conversation with Bill Maher. He isn't riding herd on some poor college student there. He is exchanging ideas. I note that the Cambridge students he debated with mourned his death and admired his commitment to the exchange of ideas. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wdp2ypq5vo
I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn't keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.
Kirk's death feels significant. I think that is in large part to the left's (painting broadly here) reaction.
On “Indefinitely isn’t what it used to be”
It's no surprise that this plugs into a belief of might is right. It also suggests that you can't deal with folks like that by reasoning, you just have to show them a bigger stick.
"
One thing that I’m struck by about Cruz’ defense of free speech (and Rand Paul’s I think) is not that we do this because strength comes from a diversity of opinions, but because the liberals might do it to us.
Yes, I noticed that with a few of the Rs taking this tack. It does seem contemptible, but the only thing that gives me pause is that even if a particular person saying it actually did feel it was a matter of principle, they might nevertheless make this argument to bring as many Rs, MAGAs etc along with them as possible under prevailing conditions. However, I can't offhand think of anybody this might apply to (although of course I am not all that familiar with all of their records), and given the current state of the GOP, this would probably be a tiny minority even if it existed.
On “Precursors continued”
Looking at the Disqus agreement, you retain the ownership of your comments, you give Disqus a license to handle them in order to provide their service. It doesn't seem like a stretch that they could use them for AI under the guise of giving you better service. I realize that this is probably a losing battle (and it's not like they can't scrape these comments) but at least they would have to go thru a few more steps. The whole model is set up to track for ads and allow commenters to keep track of their comments on multiple sites, which just lends itself to big data shenanigans.
"
I'm glad Disqus isn't being considered. The Lawyers, Guns & Money blog switched to Disqus because handling their large comment volume was beyond the capability of the WordPress built-in system or available plug-ins. A very regular comment is someone asking, "Is it just me, or is Disqus more screwed up than normal today?" From time to time I add a comment there to the effect of, "If I weren't so lazy, I'd round up some of the commenters who are also retired geeks and we'd write a system to be what Disqus wanted."
On “Indefinitely isn’t what it used to be”
This Politico piece talks about that.
It’s clear the 54-year-old Texan is wagering that at some future date, when he’s still young enough to run for president again, his party will drift back to its free market and free speech moorings. I know Cruz well enough to hear him saying it on the stump at some future Pizza Ranch stop: Look, folks, I think Trump did a lot of good and his critics never gave him a fair shot, but I stood up for our conservative values when it wasn’t totally popular in our party. (And, yes, it’s also no coincidence that Cruz has used his two major critiques to target other actors in the administration rather than Trump himself.)
One thing that I'm struck by about Cruz' defense of free speech (and Rand Paul's I think) is not that we do this because strength comes from a diversity of opinions, but because the liberals might do it to us. This suggests that if there wasn't that argument, he's be all in.
On “Precursors continued”
Several people on this list are not on the above list.
Notable Japanese Americans Interned During WWII
"
Several decades ago, I read To the Stars: The Autobiography of George Takei, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu. It was interesting, though I don't remember much of it now.
The link profiles of thirty people who were prominent or became prominent after their internment.
Japanese American Internment Legacies
On “Rule Six, there is NO … Rule Six!…”
The link reiterates some of the ideas about home touched on here.
"The sense of home varies significantly between individuals and cultures, shaped by personal experiences, values, and societal norms."
Home: Personal and Cultural Perspectives
"
Am I really going to be the first to mention that love makes a house a home? I've read that in more than one kitchen. Come to think of it, I've also read that home is where the heart is on a few house walls. I guess that logically means that love puts the heart in a house, though I've never seen it put that way in a cutely decorated kitchen.
On “Indefinitely isn’t what it used to be”
What wj said. Although, in the case of e.g. Ted Cruz, his past record entitles us to suspect that there may be more to his apparently principled stand than meets the eye. Cynicism which prompts a jump a particular way after reading the (national) room is different from sticking bravely to your principles. But sure, better to do it than not, like so many of the others.
On “Rule Six, there is NO … Rule Six!…”
"Home is where you hang your clothes."
Or, if you're an engineer, "Home is where your toolbox is."
On “Indefinitely isn’t what it used to be”
He make an excellent point that, among those with whom we massively disagree, there are (pardon me) nuances. Some had the virtue of opposing his being cancelled and the courage to stand up and say so. Others either supported it, or at least lacked the courage to say so.
Oppose those you disagree with, sure. But acknowledge it when they get something right.
On “Rule Six, there is NO … Rule Six!…”
I used to make pilgrimages to Glacier National Park but no more: climate change and crowds. I used to go to Yukon Territory but no more: climate change. I got married in front of the Tree of Life on the coast out at Kalaloch and my husband and I have gone there annually for over 20 years. This winter will be our last trip. The Tree of Life has fallen over--victim of climate change. Most of the bluff cabins have been torn down because of bluff failure, also climate change. I am planning a pilgrimage to Escalante in Utah. I've been going there for the hiking since the 1970s but this will be my last trip. Too crowded. Zion and Bryce get over a million visitors each summer and the spill over is reaching the Boulder area. When I first went there, the trails were barely developed, the roads were gravel and there was barely anything in the way of tourism. Now the area is being promoted by the state and the wonder and adventure is gone.
"I ain't got no home in this world anymore."
On “Precursors”
Before ruminating, I will mention how odd I find it that Klein is lamenting the use of social pressure and shame in the aftermath of one person shooting another in the neck with a bolt-action rifle - that is, murdering another over political differences.
"
One more response to Ezra Klein's response to the response that was given to his Charlie Kirk eulogy.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/how-can-we-live-together/
But I am stuck on one bit in particular, which Klein offered during his Shapiro interview in response to an outpouring of criticism for the whitewashing portrayal of Kirk in his op-ed. He contends that living with one another on the basis of “social shame and cultural pressure” cannot work and would not be worthwhile if it did: a nation where such things flourished would not be “a free country.”
What could Klein possibly mean by this? We are indeed going to have to live with each other, barring apocalyptic violence—but we already have been for quite some time, and doing so has not required revisionist history of the sort we are now witnessing about one Charles James Kirk in particular. The political ascendancy of right-wing fractions of the U.S. adult population is new. But their existence, of course, is not: they were not born in the summer of 2020, recent efforts to blame their intransigence and bigotry on whatever missteps may or may not have occurred during the George Floyd protests notwithstanding.
Worth a read and a bit of rumination.
On “Rule Six, there is NO … Rule Six!…”
Interesting stuff, thanks everyone. I've never had a 'home', but have always felt that there should be some place that should function as that. This may be because we are soaked in the idea (writing the post, I started a list of works that had that idea in them, but after jotting down 10 or 15, I thought it might be a bit much).
In college, we had a lot of fun with 'my people' and 'your people'. Sarcastic and full of ourselves, you can imagine when we might use it.
I was trying to find a line in a Pico Ayer essay about asking someone, a person who was basically a cosmopolitan, where he was from and him being totally baffled by the question. Couldn't find it, but did find this Tedtalk that might be of interest.
"
CaseyL: it's hard to convey intonation in text! They said "home is wherever WE are", i.e. surely as long as your parents are here, it's home. And that's not right, as my sibs and I know all too well. My upbringing had many privileges, and wonderful, character-forming experiences, but it did not give a certain kind of security and stability which I see in friends who never changed country, and often lived in the same house their entire childhood. My parents, apart from (I suppose) being people of their generation, were both born and brought up in the same country until well into adulthood, so I guess they had no concept of the kind of deracination which can result from the loss of e.g. a culture, pets, etc etc.
"
Bruce (Pete): "I vaguely recall a conversation a while back about relocating Israel to a carve-out in Baja California."
You would probably have a better (nothing like good, but better) chance selling it as a relocated Palestine.
"
GftNC - Home is not "wherever we are," though being able to feel at home wherever you are is a gift.
I have lived in Seattle since the mid-1970s (aside from a few years interregnum when I had to go back to Florida), and have been in my current house for nearly 30 years. I agree with you whole-heartedly that the thought of moving is fairly horrifying.
OTOH, if I ever do have to relocate, I hope I have the grit and spirit to make an adventure out of it.
"
I felt oddly at home while visiting London many years ago.
While London can feel like you are permanently swimming upriver, oddly enough it also feels like home to so many different people because of its diversity. That word has been thrown around unthinkingly a lot in recent years (along with "vibrant", real estate agent speak for "deprived", argh) but I don't think there are that many cities that are actually as truly diverse as London. Among other factors 40%+ of the people are foreign born so there is no one group dominating the city in any significant way and despite the crazy prices there are still council flats in Hampstead. And Londoners are by and large a nice bunch. I have different "homes" in my head as well, but feel this is it for now.
"
I wish you did belong here, hsh!
I was dragged around a lot as a child (4 countries), homes changed and parents said "but darling, surely home is wherever we are?" (for clever and worldly people they were remarkably clueless about children's psychology), so I have now lived in the same apartment in London for 47 years - longer than almost anybody I know has lived anywhere. I lived in LA for a year in the 90s, but kept my apartment and it was always "home". Even when I married, I split my time fairly equally between the North Country and my London pad, and since my husband died eight years ago I have been permanently in London. The idea of moving is fairly horrifying to me. I wish I were more flexible, but I have just turned 70, so maybe that's that.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.